Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

PZL104

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Good

About PZL104

  • Rank
    New Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austria

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What is really surprising to me is the fact that (3rd photo in post #6) the Balkenkreuz on the wings is located in different positions and different angles on each of those three Fws.
  2. Oh, now that's nice to know! I initially mentioned that the ICM kit incorrectly shows the first stage of the rotors instead of the stators but I thought that this would be over the top. Nice to see that the replacement has corrected this issue as well
  3. A few weeks ago I bought the ICM MiG-25RBT. It's not an exactly elegant plane, but it's pure speed due to the really big engines. So that's the main reason why I was interested in this kit. Today I was working on the engines, the most impressive part of the MiG-25, and noticed that ICM has the engine intake trunking and the first stage compressor wrong! On all turbojet engines like the Tumanski R-15, the compressor size is usually the same size as the turbine, and the engine intake is as wide, or a tad wider, than the compressor. On the ICM MiG-25 the compressor is only 1/4 the size of the turbine and the intake trunking noticable tapers until it reaches the tiny business jet engine sized compressor. This looks rather bad, especially since the engines are the hallmark of the MiG-25. So I tried to find out if the much more expensive Kitty Hawk version is any better. To my surprise I've read that the parts fit isn't good (excellent on the ICM version) and that there's no intake trunking and no compressor at all! If this is actually the case, this would mean that you can build this kit only with engine covers installed and this rather important fact would have been mentioned in the various kit reviews. Edit: After searching for more info, it looks like there's really nothing inside the Kitty Hawk MiG-25. So I consider myself blessed with the ICM version
  4. Although it lacks the elegance of a 'real' Mirage, you did an absolutely brilliant job with the conversion, camo and weathering. A top job
  5. To be honest, if Troffa wouldn't have mentioned it, I wouldn't have noticed this tiny error since the smaller (and IMO more elegant) chord stabilizers are much more noticable and you simply don't expect these to be cut off. FYI, the 'lightning rods' don't have anything to do with lightning. These static dischargers are fitted to avoid problems with the navigation and communication equipment. when flying through precipitation.
  6. A very nice paint scheme and a very nice build. @Troffa, his F-16 does have the correct small stabilizers (trailing edges are flush with the speedbrakes) but for some reason the outboard edges are slightly cut off.
  7. I definitely didn't feel offended I just wanted to point out where or what are the mentioned issues. And thank you for you kind words, although what I posted isn't even a tiny fraction of the info Bobski posted!!!
  8. Thank you very much Your posts are basically the only reliable source I've found after more than week of searching the net. Highly appreciated
  9. I assume that the conflicting info comes from editing/updating because the text says e.g. Spanish Air Force - FS36231 and below Austrian Air Force - FS36492 (the same as the Spanish Air Force) and Italian Air Force - FS36280 (Approximately - has also been quoted as FS36492)
  10. Since I'm about to restart modelling after a few decades of non-activity I've bought a few cheap models to experiment with the 'new' way of glueing, painting etc. For this reason I've bought e.g. the Revell 1/72 Typhoon. Of course it needs to be the Austrian version and since I found out that nowadays modellers even complain about the shape of maintenance openings, I was surprised that it's next to impossible to find accurate info about the various colors used for the Typhoon. Another problem is the lack of color accuracy. To find out which companies colors I'm going to use, I've bought FS36375 from AK (Real Color), Hataka and MRP. Rather surprsingly only MRP matches my FS 595a color chip. Hataka is darker and AK 'Real Color' is even darker than the Hataka version and very close to the noticable darker FS36320. Some companies incorrectly claim that barley grey is BS 629 instead of 626 and that FS36314 matches BS 626 which isn't the case either and the Hasegawa and Italeri colors are wrong as well in many cases. Many complaints concerning Typhoon colors seem to focus to the 'fact' that the 'correct' colors are too dark on the models, especially in 1/72 scale and this sparks theories that Austrian (and Italian) Typhoons are painted in FS36492. If scale factor isn't applied and the 'theoretically' correct color is too dark, it's no surprise that the model Typhoon doesn't even look remotely realistic. Since the radome on all Typhoons is BS 626 it's a good starting point to compare the fuselage colors with this color. Although the radome darkens, it's easy to notice that the combination of FS36492 and BS 626 can't exist since the radome color is usually noticeable brighter than the fuselage, not vice versa. For my own troubleshooting and out of curiosity I've made a color sheet and I thought that it might be useful in this thread since it might be of interest to others as well. The colors are matching the sRGB numbers and the approximate 1/72 scale colors have been achieved by adding 20% white to the original colors. https://pasteboard.co/Ig9j0Mh.jpg pasteboard images apparently can't be inserted in this forum.
  11. It's very similar here. I love the perfect aerodynamic design of the Flanker, but the interesting main landing gear design and the folding ventral fin of the Flogger make it rather unique. Btw, I'd be happy if my attempts would be as 'mediocre' as yours!
  12. You really made the most out of this kit and the grey paint scheme. A really very nice built and weathered Flogger . edited due to ac type mismatch.
  13. A very nice build. No overdone weathering and a nice camo choice
  14. Very impressive, very nicely built and finished. Could be easily from a BM oldtimer!
  15. Perfect choice of airplane, camo and a perfect execution! Very impressive!
×
×
  • Create New...